Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (9) TMI 184

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are invokable. In the present case, Revenue has failed to establish that there are more than one services provided by the appellant. Appellant is providing only one service whether it is earlier classified as advertising agency service or subsequently classified as business auxiliary service. Appellant is merely providing one service and, therefore, the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are not invokable in the present case. Therefore, the demands involved in both the appeals are not sustainable. The impugned order-in-original dated 18.11.2016 is modified to the extent that the demand confirmed to the tune of Rs.4,90,25,118/- is set aside and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the same as exempted service by invoking the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, initially a show cause notice dated 19.12.2012 was issued to the appellant covering the period from financial year 2008-09 to 2011-12 demanding 6% amount on 85% amount which did not suffer service tax at the hands of appellant and the amount demanded under said sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 was Rs.4,90,25,118/-. In addition, another issue was also dealt with in the said show cause notice, but since the appellant has not preferred any appeal in respect of the other issue, the details of the other issue are not taken into consideration. The said show cause notice dated 19.12.2012 is connected to appeal No. ST/87732/2016. The sa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t Credit Rules, he dropped the demand of amount of Rs.9,26,42,556/-. Aggrieved by the confirmation of demand of Rs.6,46,873/-, appellant is before this Tribunal through appeal No. ST/86310/2019. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has paid entire service tax and the consideration received by it and that the 85% of the component of the amount collected from ultimate customer which was passed on to the newpaper or magazine which published the advertisement was not required to be subjected to service tax at the level of the appellant, as the said value was not to be included in the assessable value at the end of the appellant as clarified by CBEC in Circular No. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by CBEC has clarified that where the advertisements are canvassed on commission for publishing in newspaper or magazine, then such service could be treated as business auxiliary service and, therefore, the clarification dated 31.10.1996 is not applicable in the present case. 5. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and submissions made. We understand that Revenue has invoked the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for demand of amount in respect of 85% component of the consideration received by the appellant, which was subsequently paid to the news media which published the advertisements collected by the appellant. We would, therefore, like to discuss about the provisions of sub-rule (2) of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ax is payable are admissible for availment. This clearly indicates that the service provider should be providing more than one services and when one of the services provided is exempted, then alone the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are invokable. In the present case, Revenue has failed to establish that there are more than one services provided by the appellant. Appellant is providing only one service whether it is earlier classified as advertising agency service or subsequently classified as business auxiliary service. Appellant is merely providing one service and, therefore, the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are not invokable in the present case. Therefore, the demand .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates